The FCC and Net Neutrality

[CID1990]

Wait

I know corporate money buys influence in DC - but three dudes? Plus, DoJ is a cabinet level department and independent of Congress in terms of their ability to bring suit.

I get the money angle, but blaming campaign contributions to three congressmen - and one of them took 76k over seventeen years (I could have wrote those checks and got a bridge named after me?).... that's a LOT of influence for some chump cha.ge right there

It would be better to take a look at who were the ACS during all of this- see what THEIR connections to the service providers were, but when it comes to antitrust cases, pointing at campaign contributions to minority members of Congress is weak sauce. DoJ could have brought the suit at any time and there would have been nothing they could do about it.... and the president gets to reap the political popularity for making Clitz's internet run at warp speed.

All that aside, I think a new law... this one especially... is a bad idea chock full of unintended consequences ( which is synonymous with governnent)

Cid, you know the answer, but I doubt Cleets will admit it.

Comcast donated $325,000+ to the Obama reelection fund in 2012 alone (not counting what super bundler David Cohen did personally). The DoJ (Holder) might be independent of Congress, but he is/was Obama's puppet and would never allow anti-trust litigation against Comcast. Not in a million years.

Seems to me that that much money all in one campaign has a heck of a lot more bite than the same amount spread over 17 years.... or 75k spread out over 17 years

Hell if Congressmen are that easy to purchase I think Ima gonna go get ME one

[kalm]

Cid, you know the answer, but I doubt Cleets will admit it.

Comcast donated $325,000+ to the Obama reelection fund in 2012 alone (not counting what super bundler David Cohen did personally). The DoJ (Holder) might be independent of Congress, but he is/was Obama's puppet and would never allow anti-trust litigation against Comcast. Not in a million years.

Seems to me that that much money all in one campaign has a heck of a lot more bite than the same amount spread over 17 years.... or 75k spread out over 17 years

Hell if Congressmen are that easy to purchase I think Ima gonna go get ME one

I don't think NN was as much of an issue 17 years ago.

Here's some more info:

http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/C2200/view/all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice to see you guys starting to figure out how are system...er, I mean free speech...works.

[Chizzang]

Wait

I know corporate money buys influence in DC - but three dudes? Plus, DoJ is a cabinet level department and independent of Congress in terms of their ability to bring suit.

I get the money angle, but blaming campaign contributions to three congressmen - and one of them took 76k over seventeen years (I could have wrote those checks and got a bridge named after me?).... that's a LOT of influence for some chump cha.ge right there

It would be better to take a look at who were the ACS during all of this- see what THEIR connections to the service providers were, but when it comes to antitrust cases, pointing at campaign contributions to minority members of Congress is weak sauce. DoJ could have brought the suit at any time and there would have been nothing they could do about it.... and the president gets to reap the political popularity for making Clitz's internet run at warp speed.

All that aside, I think a new law... this one especially... is a bad idea chock full of unintended consequences ( which is synonymous with governnent)

Cid, you know the answer, but I doubt Cleets will admit it.

Comcast donated $325,000+ to the Obama reelection fund in 2012 alone (not counting what super bundler David Cohen did personally). The DoJ (Holder) might be independent of Congress, but he is/was Obama's puppet and would never allow anti-trust litigation against Comcast. Not in a million years.

I already said OBAMA was the problem... sweet Jeezus you guys are a piece of work

1) Obama the puppet appointed wheeler (BAD BAD BAD.!!!!)
2) Wheeler is THE former Lobby President for Comcast and the Broadband syndicate
3) The Three Congressmen I mention are simply the ones who drafted the corrupt legislation - thus their significance
4) There are hundreds of hands in the PIE


FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican thing...
even though the guys above who drafted the crap bill are Republicans its not the whole story

Wheeler is the Primary problem (Another bad Obama appointee)
Trying to have a decent discussion with you clowns is just a waste of time

[Baldy]

Cid, you know the answer, but I doubt Cleets will admit it.

Comcast donated $325,000+ to the Obama reelection fund in 2012 alone (not counting what super bundler David Cohen did personally). The DoJ (Holder) might be independent of Congress, but he is/was Obama's puppet and would never allow anti-trust litigation against Comcast. Not in a million years.

I already said OBAMA was the problem... sweet Jeezus you guys are a piece of work

1) Obama the puppet appointed wheeler (BAD BAD BAD.!!!!)
2) Wheeler is THE former Lobby President for Comcast and the Broadband syndicate
3) The Three Congressmen I mention are simply the ones who drafted the corrupt legislation - thus their significance
4) There are hundreds of hands in the PIE


FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican thing...
even though the guys above who drafted the crap bill are Republicans its not the whole story

Wheeler is the Primary problem (Another bad Obama appointee)
Trying to have a decent discussion with you clowns is just a waste of time

See, was it that hard to explain? Jeezus Christ on a cracker.

Careful Cheez Wiz or houndie will call you a drama queen when he wakes up from his nap.

[Chizzang]

Okay you putz's
Here's where we are...
Two months ago you two said: Hey nothing to worry about the DOJ will prosecute for monopoly blah blah blah

1)
Except NO they won't
If Holder has shown us anything its that he's completely corrupt
If there's no future pay-off (after he retires from holding the Nation hostage) he won't bother
He is a "quid pro quo" what's in it for me douche till the end of his term

2)
The legislation coming from certain congressmen is completely corrupt (afore mentioned congressmen)
Yes there are only three of them brave enough to put their names on the criminally bad legislation
but they are well represented all around

3)
As I've said already" Tom Wheeler is a criminal
And yet ANOTHER terrible Obama appointment (see: Holder)
Wheeler is truly the Fox overseeing the chicken coop and I would expect nothing but lies from him

4)
The kids are watching... This issue touches the 20 somethings all over America
and if the Republican Party handles this badly they will be marked for death for eternity
This is a huge opportunity to MAKE A STAND and do the right thing and draft proper Utility Legislation

5)
Comcast and the other money stealing group of Broadband buildout contractors must not be allowed to
a) take billions in build out money
b) provide 26th ranked QOS for top dollar funds
c) restrict competition

All these ^ things they've already done - and continue to do
Now its time to FIX THAT

[CID1990]

No, its time to make a stink on the Hill so DoJ brings an antitrust suit.

NOT write a new law.

They do that, and 10 years from now every time we talk about how free and open our cyberspace is, we'll have the dbacks and the klams telling us how similar we are to China and Russia... because ....'Murica

You make a compelling case Clitz- and I havent disputed you. But the case you make is fir the magnitude of the problem- not the necessity of the legislative remedy

[Chizzang]

No, its time to make a stink on the Hill so DoJ brings an antitrust suit.

NOT write a new law.

They do that, and 10 years from now every time we talk about how free and open our cyberspace is, we'll have the dbacks and the klams telling us how similar we are to China and Russia... because ....'Murica

You make a compelling case Clitz- and I havent disputed you. But the case you make is fir the magnitude of the problem- not the necessity of the legislative remedy

Ya... well good luck with that
1/3 of congress has been paid off already
Holder is criminally negligent or incompetent in about 50% of his duties
Who's going to hold his hand on this one to get it done..?

We had our chance at Anti-Trust in the late 90's early 2000's
and the Cable Companies payed and bribed their way out of it - so here we are today

Our last decent shot is Utilities Legislation
if we get this wrong its over
and its pretty much already over

But there's a chance we get this right...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM[/youtube]

[kalm]

No, its time to make a stink on the Hill so DoJ brings an antitrust suit.

NOT write a new law.

They do that, and 10 years from now every time we talk about how free and open our cyberspace is, we'll have the dbacks and the klams telling us how similar we are to China and Russia... because ....'Murica

You make a compelling case Clitz- and I havent disputed you. But the case you make is fir the magnitude of the problem- not the necessity of the legislative remedy

1). If your going to insult, at least try make it sensible and funny.

2). Let me know when you've finally caught up to speed on the issue.

Thanks in advance!

[BDKJMU]

Well, things are going to be changing.

"New FCC chair vows to shrink industry regulations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Republican chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, vowed to pare back outdated commission regulations, but declined to say if he will move quickly to overturn the Obama administration's landmark net neutrality rules.

One top priority is "to remove unnecessary or counterproductive regulations from the books," Pai told reporters Tuesday after he chaired his first meeting. "We want to make sure that our regulations match the realities of the modern marketplace."

Pai, who was tapped by President Donald Trump this month to run the FCC, in December vowed to take a "weed whacker" to unnecessary FCC rules. He opposed many rules imposed by the Obama administration, including net neutrality, broadband privacy and media ownership limits.

The net neutrality rules bar internet access protections from slowing consumer access to web content. Internet providers fear net neutrality rules make it harder to manage internet traffic and make investment in additional capacity less likely. The Republican-controlled Congress is also considering rewriting the net neutrality rules.

Pai opposed the Obama administration's 2015 net neutrality rules that reclassified broadband providers and treated them like a public utility. He said Tuesday he supports a "free and open internet" but opposes the reclassification.

In December, Pai told some small broadband providers in a letter that it would not enforce the "enhanced transparency" rules. He declined to say if he is considering not enforcing net neutrality rules for all companies even if they remain on the books.

"We haven't made any determinations," Pai said.

The FCC on Tuesday voted to abolish a requirement that cable systems, commercial TV and radio broadcasters retain some public inspection files.

On Friday, Pai withdrew proposed reforms of the $45 billion business data services market and $20 billion pay TV set top box market. He declined to say if he will formally close any pending dockets.

A number of cable and wireless trade associations on Friday asked the FCC to put new broadband privacy rules on hold while the Republican-controlled FCC considers whether to scrap the rules.

Pai declined to say if thought the AT&T Inc Time Warner Inc merger should be subject to FCC review. The companies said this month they only expect a review by the U.S. Justice Department."
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/fcc-chair-vo ... nance.html

[kalm]

Well, things are going to be changing.

"New FCC chair vows to shrink industry regulations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Republican chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, vowed to pare back outdated commission regulations, but declined to say if he will move quickly to overturn the Obama administration's landmark net neutrality rules.

One top priority is "to remove unnecessary or counterproductive regulations from the books," Pai told reporters Tuesday after he chaired his first meeting. "We want to make sure that our regulations match the realities of the modern marketplace."

Pai, who was tapped by President Donald Trump this month to run the FCC, in December vowed to take a "weed whacker" to unnecessary FCC rules. He opposed many rules imposed by the Obama administration, including net neutrality, broadband privacy and media ownership limits.

The net neutrality rules bar internet access protections from slowing consumer access to web content. Internet providers fear net neutrality rules make it harder to manage internet traffic and make investment in additional capacity less likely. The Republican-controlled Congress is also considering rewriting the net neutrality rules.

Pai opposed the Obama administration's 2015 net neutrality rules that reclassified broadband providers and treated them like a public utility. He said Tuesday he supports a "free and open internet" but opposes the reclassification.

In December, Pai told some small broadband providers in a letter that it would not enforce the "enhanced transparency" rules. He declined to say if he is considering not enforcing net neutrality rules for all companies even if they remain on the books.

"We haven't made any determinations," Pai said.

The FCC on Tuesday voted to abolish a requirement that cable systems, commercial TV and radio broadcasters retain some public inspection files.

On Friday, Pai withdrew proposed reforms of the $45 billion business data services market and $20 billion pay TV set top box market. He declined to say if he will formally close any pending dockets.

A number of cable and wireless trade associations on Friday asked the FCC to put new broadband privacy rules on hold while the Republican-controlled FCC considers whether to scrap the rules.

Pai declined to say if thought the AT&T Inc Time Warner Inc merger should be subject to FCC review. The companies said this month they only expect a review by the U.S. Justice Department."
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/fcc-chair-vo ... nance.html

Of course he did...because who doesn't like less competition and a for-profit limited public commons?

[Chizzang]

Hilariously and predictably Comcast waited for the new administration to roll in...
The first slap is to counter the law that said that consumers can use their own Cable Box to avoid the $10 a month fee - now Comcast has announced they will charge you $10 a month no matter what box you use, and they will call it a "connection fee"...

For example you used to be able to use Xbox or ROKU as your cable box to save $10
The $10 fee will now return as a connection fee

[GannonFan]

Hilariously and predictably Comcast waited for the new administration to roll in...
The first slap is to counter the law that said that consumers can use their own Cable Box to avoid the $10 a month fee - now Comcast has announced they will charge you $10 a month no matter what box you use, and they will call it a "connection fee"...

For example you used to be able to use Xbox or ROKU as your cable box to save $10
The $10 fee will now return as a connection fee

Well, regardless of what they call it, if they charge that to everyone isn't it just really a $10 increase in cost? I mean, my cell phone has like ten different "fees" that get added on to the bill, but at the end of the day I'm just looking at the bottom line. I get it that Comcast is greedy and looking to make every buck they can, but this just really amounts to an across the board price increase, not some nefarious plot. Just cable making cable more expensive and likely incentivizing people to look elsewhere.

[Chizzang]

Hilariously and predictably Comcast waited for the new administration to roll in...
The first slap is to counter the law that said that consumers can use their own Cable Box to avoid the $10 a month fee - now Comcast has announced they will charge you $10 a month no matter what box you use, and they will call it a "connection fee"...

For example you used to be able to use Xbox or ROKU as your cable box to save $10
The $10 fee will now return as a connection fee

Well, regardless of what they call it, if they charge that to everyone isn't it just really a $10 increase in cost? I mean, my cell phone has like ten different "fees" that get added on to the bill, but at the end of the day I'm just looking at the bottom line. I get it that Comcast is greedy and looking to make every buck they can, but this just really amounts to an across the board price increase, not some nefarious plot. Just cable making cable more expensive and likely incentivizing people to look elsewhere.

Yes it is indeed an added tax
But you'll notice your Cell Phone provider can't charge you $10 for using an off the shelf charger

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Hilariously and predictably Comcast waited for the new administration to roll in...
The first slap is to counter the law that said that consumers can use their own Cable Box to avoid the $10 a month fee - now Comcast has announced they will charge you $10 a month no matter what box you use, and they will call it a "connection fee"...

For example you used to be able to use Xbox or ROKU as your cable box to save $10
The $10 fee will now return as a connection fee

Get rid of Comcast. Done

[GannonFan]

Well, regardless of what they call it, if they charge that to everyone isn't it just really a $10 increase in cost? I mean, my cell phone has like ten different "fees" that get added on to the bill, but at the end of the day I'm just looking at the bottom line. I get it that Comcast is greedy and looking to make every buck they can, but this just really amounts to an across the board price increase, not some nefarious plot. Just cable making cable more expensive and likely incentivizing people to look elsewhere.

Yes it is indeed an added tax
But you'll notice your Cell Phone provider can't charge you $10 for using an off the shelf charger

But they can raise the rate by $10 and call it anything they want. Companies can raise their selling price to whatever they want to raise it to (generally speaking). If Comcast wants to be $10 more expensive, that's just a boon to Verizon or (insert other cable companies here) or cord cutters.

[Chizzang]

Yes it is indeed an added tax
But you'll notice your Cell Phone provider can't charge you $10 for using an off the shelf charger

But they can raise the rate by $10 and call it anything they want. Companies can raise their selling price to whatever they want to raise it to (generally speaking). If Comcast wants to be $10 more expensive, that's just a boon to Verizon or (insert other cable companies here) or cord cutters.

Ya... I get it
But what you're not "getting" is that whilst Comcast is creating imaginary taxes
They are simultaneously being protected by our Federal Government

Additional taxes are fine if you're in a truly competitive open market
But Comcast is NOT in a free market environment - they are in a protected federal environment



There are virtually no competitive consequences for them adding imaginary fees

[GannonFan]

But they can raise the rate by $10 and call it anything they want. Companies can raise their selling price to whatever they want to raise it to (generally speaking). If Comcast wants to be $10 more expensive, that's just a boon to Verizon or (insert other cable companies here) or cord cutters.

Ya... I get it
But what you're not "getting" is that whilst Comcast is creating imaginary taxes
They are simultaneously being protected by our Federal Government

Additional taxes are fine if you're in a truly competitive open market
But Comcast is NOT in a free market environment - they are in a protected federal environment



There are virtually no competitive consequences for them adding imaginary fees

Well, they are creating a fee, not a tax. I'm pretty sure Comcast isn't a legislative body just yet.

And of course there are competitive consequences for them if they raise the rates, where have you been? This isn't Obamacare, there's no law that says everyone must have cable television or pay a fine. Heck, more than 1 in 5 homes in the US today don't even get any cable any more and that keeps rising (included an old article saying the same). And something like 38% of the younger adults don't have cable, so the arc of history is decidedly not in Comcast's favor. Sure, they make a money grab now with the older generation that can't contemplate cutting the cord, but it's a diminishing business model.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/household ... d-cutters/

[YoUDeeMan]

As an educated consumer...Comcast can't do anything that has a negative impact on me.

Sure, they might do things to negatively impact old people, minorities, and other such people, but I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would complain about Comcast's ability to negatively impact them.

[BDKJMU]

FCC announced today that it has dropped its investigation into wireless provider's zero rating data plans (allow consumers to stream mobile video without worrying about how much cellular data they’re using). 1st blow to the net-neutrality principles put in place by the Obama FCC.
http://www.thewrap.com/fcc-drops-invest ... eutrality/

[Chizzang]

Ya... I get it
But what you're not "getting" is that whilst Comcast is creating imaginary taxes
They are simultaneously being protected by our Federal Government

Additional taxes are fine if you're in a truly competitive open market
But Comcast is NOT in a free market environment - they are in a protected federal environment



There are virtually no competitive consequences for them adding imaginary fees

Well, they are creating a fee, not a tax. I'm pretty sure Comcast isn't a legislative body just yet.

And of course there are competitive consequences for them if they raise the rates, where have you been? This isn't Obamacare, there's no law that says everyone must have cable television or pay a fine. Heck, more than 1 in 5 homes in the US today don't even get any cable any more and that keeps rising (included an old article saying the same). And something like 38% of the younger adults don't have cable, so the arc of history is decidedly not in Comcast's favor. Sure, they make a money grab now with the older generation that can't contemplate cutting the cord, but it's a diminishing business model.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/household ... d-cutters/

If you even remotely understood what you were talking about I'd respect your opinion more...



But it's cute that you have an opinion because of a "cord cutters" article
Clearly that article explains everything you need to know to be informed

Here's some 101 for you :
The Broadband infrastructure that provides 85% of Americans access to the internet and Cable TV
Was built with TAX DOLLARS by the citizens of the united states - we own it
exactly the same way roads the power grid was built

Which is why the Cable Providers must offer minimum connection packages (which they hide)
and regularly attempt to legislate OUT of their mandated offerings

As a "thing" that we the people own, the internet and broadband infrastructure
Like clean water... The city doesn't charge you based on the type of faucet you use
They have a fee associated with usage not your homes fixtures

there's so much more but just digest that for a minute



Please read this before you post again
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -internet/

[YoUDeeMan]

Again, as an educated consumer...Comcast can't do anything that has a negative impact on me.

Sure, they might do things to negatively impact old people, minorities, and other such people, but I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would complain about Comcast's ability to negatively impact them.

[Chizzang]

Again, as an educated consumer...Comcast can't do anything that has a negative impact on me.

Sure, they might do things to negatively impact old people, minorities, and other such people, but I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would complain about Comcast's ability to negatively impact them.

In some areas of the country Comcast is the only service provider option...
They are the sole internet and TV provider

So... Yes they can do significant damage

All the Major remaining providers after the big buy out of independents in 2001
All colluded to move out of each others competitive markets
So by design (collusion) here is only ONE significant option per major market

and companies like Google are being legislated out of building competitive infrastructure
to provide consumers another option

[YoUDeeMan]

Again, as an educated consumer...Comcast can't do anything that has a negative impact on me.

Sure, they might do things to negatively impact old people, minorities, and other such people, but I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would complain about Comcast's ability to negatively impact them.

In some areas of the country Comcast is the only service provider option...
They are the sole internet and TV provider

So... Yes they can do significant damage

And in some areas of the country, the Supreme Court actually impacts White males...but that doesn't concern you.



As far as Comcast goes, there are always other options...no one needs cable. Most educated folks can access a library, university, satellite access...lots of options. No respectable person gets stuck with paying a cable.

[Chizzang]

In some areas of the country Comcast is the only service provider option...
They are the sole internet and TV provider

So... Yes they can do significant damage

And in some areas of the country, the Supreme Court actually impacts White males...but that doesn't concern you.



As far as Comcast goes, there are always other options...no one needs cable. Most educated folks can access a library, university, satellite access...lots of options. No respectable person gets stuck with paying a cable.

irrelevant point ^
It's a publicly owned utility built by the tax payer
That's like saying nobody "Needs access" to electricity or clean water



We paid for it
We own it

Also:
I am aware you're tolling me

[CID1990]

Again, as an educated consumer...Comcast can't do anything that has a negative impact on me.

Sure, they might do things to negatively impact old people, minorities, and other such people, but I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would complain about Comcast's ability to negatively impact them.

In some areas of the country Comcast is the only service provider option...
They are the sole internet and TV provider

So... Yes they can do significant damage

All the Major remaining providers after the big buy out of independents in 2001
All colluded to move out of each others competitive markets
So by design (collusion) here is only ONE significant option per major market

and companies like Google are being legislated out of building competitive infrastructure
to provide consumers another option

I wonder how many white males this affects